Suggested changes to CAF TOS [split from changes to dress]

[Pusser]

https://luckyattitude.co.uk/millennial-characteristics/

The Ultimate List of Millennial Characteristics - 11 Feb 18

Glad to hear that millennials are conscious, although perhaps they ought to observe them on a Saturday night....

Then again, may be the author (a millennial?) needs to pull out a dictionary and learn the difference between "conscious" and "conscientious." 

 

[jollyjacktar]

If he can stay awake long enough to do so...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

While I agree that the TOS are due (overdue) for reform, we have, IMHO, to keep in mind a few points:

First, whenever the economy is good and employment offer plentiful (some would call it a worker's market), the military is always competing with one arm tied up: military life just isn't as attractive then so both enrolment and retention suffers. Thus, such hard times for filling positions may or may not warrant changes in policy in and of themselves. One has to be careful.

Second, if retention is a problem to be solved through TOS, first the reasons for leaving must be carefully evaluated to make sure we address the ones that matter to different services. For instance, I would suspect that the loss of senior technical personnel by the Navy is not the same as the reason why the Army is losing its mid-level leadership. I suspect a large part in the Navy is over deployment while in the Army it's lack of deployment for which they joined to start with.

Third, we have to identify  those areas of HR management in the CAF that are imposed on us by Treasury Board policies and which are counter-productive to the objective of the CAF personnel management as opposed to civil servant's, then proceed to explain and support the needed changes to get the said TB to agree to make military exception. Otherwise we will not get anywhere.

BTW, PPCLI Guy: if the Army goes to "geo-stationary" type of employment (I say Army because the Navy already has "home porting", or has that been cancelled?) with most members spending most of their career in single location (one assumes moving mostly within one's own Regiment and brigade/division which is based at a single location), wouldn't that be reverting to the pre-unification regimental system in great part?

 

[Pusser]

Petard, l suggest the short hair requirement wasn't "developed", it was a necessity for hygiene and wound management in the trenches of the first world war.

At any rate, looking at many of the Brits in the sandbox, they were sporting fairly thick doos and it didn't seem to slow them down in either effectiveness or professionalism.  I'm not totally convinced your argument holds full weight.

Short hair in the navy goes back a lot further than that (sort of).  In the days of wooden ships and iron men, "landsmen" were regularly pressed into service.  Upon being taken on board the ship, their heads were usually shaved (or shorn very closely) to combat lice.  However, it was allowed to grow after that.  Thus, long hair was a sign of long service and experience as a seaman.  From this also developed the fashion of wearing long hair in a tarred pigtail (tar can help prevent lice), which is where the sailor's collar came from.  Much like the cover on the back of a high chair, the sailor's collar was detachable and designed to protect the rest of the uniform from the tar in the pigtail.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Belgium is considering to allow recruits sleep at home.

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/belgium-may-have-new-appeal-for-millennials-join-the-army-and-sleep-at-home

 

[cld617]

This I'd like...and would be more willing to take that posting to 'the place I hate the most' if I knew there was a pot of something (good) at the end of that rainbow.  Maybe an OUTCAN, something.  It would have to be 'in writing', for me at least!

The reality is there are some trades where there simply aren't enough pot-of-gold positions available to rotate those people out, without in turn rotating everyone else in. The amount of techs in Cold Lake dwarfs nearly every other base, and even if half wanted to spend their careers there, you're spending huge amounts to rotate the other half out and fill those spots. We shot ourselves in the foot back when we chose locations, back when the thought of a spouse having a career was laughable and we got away with paying people shekels.

 

[kratz]

The reality is there are some trades where there simply aren't enough pot-of-gold positions available to rotate those people out, without in turn rotating everyone else in. The amount of techs in Cold Lake dwarfs nearly every other base, and even if half wanted to spend their careers here, you're spending huge amounts to rotate the other half out and fill those spots. We shot ourselves in the foot back when we chose locations, back when the thought of a spouse having a career was laughable and we got away with paying people shekels.

I agree, the CAF shoots itself in the foot, but the bases we operate have been justified and rationalized.

If the RCAF made a "home port", at two major locations for most trades, it would help with retention.

Yes, change the CAF TOS system, some current incentives are gold.

 

[Pusser]

One incentive you could give to moving is to bring it back in house again.  When we took care of our own, things were much better for the member.  Brookfield is not so concerned, unless it's the bottom dollar.  Which is understandable. 

Just as our in house dental care is superior to private practice from the standpoint of not worrying about costs in the same way.

I have had moves under in house, Royal Lepage and Brookfield.  Each change was a step down in quality for me and my family.

That's not entirely true.  Having both moved and administered moves under both systems, I can honestly say that we saw a net improvement in overall benefit to the member as a result of contracting things out.  What we hear about all the time is all the negative parts of the Brookfield experience.  What we don't tend to hear about is all the things that went right.  Keep in mind that some of what we were doing when we controlled moves in house was actually illegal and so we had to stop doing those things.  This just happened to coincide with the switch to the contractor.  The other problem, and the key driving factor behind going to the IIRP, was consistency.  Some commanders were more generous in approvals than others and it was causing problems.

 

[jollyjacktar]

So are you suggesting, Pusser, the shit show that recently came to light with Brookfield is a figment of imagination or a better move experience than in the past? 

I can't speak for anyone else but myself but from my standpoint it was a better feeling in past moves for me than in recent times.

 

[mariomike]

Releases should have a 365 day no penalty get back in clause, back into the same job in the same location

That's an interesting concept ( to me ), because where I worked, employees were only allowed five days to rescind a resignation / release.

After that, there was no coming back.

Would a CAF "boomerang" member ( 365-day release and re-hire ) be subject to a Reference Check?

How frequently could CAF members take advantage of a 365 day no penalty get back in clause?

 

[tabernac]

Well, actually the guys l was speaking of are not the antiquated dinosaur types you're thinking of.  Their leaving will be a loss of corporate knowledge and leadership that's not easily replaced.  I wouldn't be mourning the loss of dinosaurs.

My apologies, I should have been more clear - their departure (read: bleeding) will continue, just as my contemporaries and peers are seriously considering leaving. I didn't mean to link those departing members to those who still wear leather gaiters and square-rig. Full disclosure: I'm releasing.

If you graph out the numbers of NWOs challenging their Command Boards, you'll see the numbers are declining. Likewise, the there's less interest in ORO (for the non hard-navy: ops room officer, roughly analogous to combined Coy OC/Battle Captain/OpsO/Adj)

My comment was directed towards cheeky_monkey who had a negative comment towards dinosaurs. But I liked JJT response so I used it. Should have used the multi-quote button.
Woops!

Of course I'll comment negatively about dinosaurs - they few are the millstone around the navy's neck. Unfortunately, it appears as if the navy doesn't value people, or more specifically, work/life balance. Sometimes I feel like the navy puts the priority on the institution, not the people who make up the institution. Put in other words: The navy is NOTHING without the people who man the ships that put to sea.

Vern, EITS, ERC, PPCLI Guy: Members of the CAF HR Revitalization steering group?!

 

[McG]

Somewhere on these boards, I have suggested something similar to elements of this Journey.  Instead of looking at it from a Reg F career flexibility perspective, I was looking more at the RegF/PRes boundary.

Currently, all Reg F positions have an Operational Baseline Type and I would either build on this or create a separate designation to differentiate between positions that can accept a limited liability occupant and positions require an unlimited liability occupant.  All Class B/A positions would become Reg F positions with a limited liability occupant acceptable designation (PRes incumbents would remain until end of current TOS, then be given the option to CT or vacate the position).

By default, all Reg F pers would be enrolled under unlimited liability TOS (with a skilled entrant enrollment plan offering an optional exception for re-enrollment and component transfer).  Once the initial TOS are complete, members would have the option to select either unlimited liability service or limited liability service (and they would have the flexibility to move between the two streams at any point thereafter).

Limited liability would be much like current PRes Cl B/A with 85% pay, no mandatory cost moves, and no obligation to deploy on international operations unless posted to an LDA or SDA unit (note: normally LDA and SDA positions would be designated unlimited liability required, but exceptions could exist if positions would otherwise be vacant and the member volunteers for the spot).  Unlimited liability would be like RegF with 100% pay, an obligation to move when posted, and an obligation to deploy anywhere when called to do so.  Both limited and unlimited liability members would be managed by the same CMs, attend the same career courses, and be selected for promotion through the same boards.  This means that the limited liability member can be posted, but only within the geographic location such that a move is not incurred.

Much like a PER opt-out, you cannot wait until you know the outcome is unfavourable to subscribe to the exemption.  To avoid an out-of-APS posting, the application for limited liability service need only be submitted before a posting message is cut.  To avoid an APS posting, the application for limited liability service need be submitted before December, with applications received after 01 Dec incurring a 4 month deferment to activation.  By contrast, if a member opts from limited liability to unlimited liability, a posting message could be cut the very next day regardless of timing as APS or out-of-APS.  For exceptional personal circumstances, compassionate status would continue to exist, and would not be governed by the same timelines as opting into limited liability.

Lots more meat to put on this skeleton though, and a lot of scenarios that I have not taken the time to describe (and likely even more that I have not thought of).

 

[Edward Campbell]

Something some of us discussed many years decades ago was rethinking the term "reserve" so that we might co sider a three or four element force:

1. The active force ~ today's regular force except that every single member, without fail, is fit, has passed his/her physical fitness and weapon handling tests and is 100% green for immediate deployment, anywhere;

2. The permanent force which consists of Group 1 plus all those who want a career and are will ing and able to be posted thither and yon and attend courses and so on ~ some, even quite a few may be orange for deployment for any number of most ,likely temporary reasons they will be, per force, members of the reserve force;

3. The reserve force which consists of members on full time service in many HQs and units, full time and part time, the terms of service might be variable and flexible and an individual's pay rates might vary depending on the number of limitations (s)he needs to stay in ... i.e. no move until my kids finish elementary school, or no move out of Quebec or no move to Quebec, etc; and

4. The volunteer reserve which consists of people on part time service in part-time units. It (the RCNVR, CA(VR) and RCAFVR) is, as we used to say, a "students' militia" geared around a university student's academic year with units led and managed by a mix of former and serving full time (permanent force and reserve force) members.

The reserve force is the largest component; the active force component is the smallest ~ maybe ten ships, two brigades and four or five RCAF squadrons, all high readiness, all up to strength, all "ready to rumble."

Anyways ... thoughts from the Staff College bar, late on winter night, several decades ago ...

Neither the problem nor some of the solutions are all that new.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Something some of us discussed many years decades ago was rethinking the term "reserve" so that we might co sider a three or four element force:

1. The active force ~ today's regular force except that every single member, without fail, is fit, has passed his/her physical fitness and weapon handling tests and is 100% green for immediate deployment, anywhere;

2. The permanent force which consists of Group 1 plus all those who want a career and are will ing and able to be posted thither and yon and attend courses and so on ~ some, even quite a few may be orange for deployment for any number of most ,likely temporary reasons they will be, per force, members of the reserve force;

3. The reserve force which consists of members on full time service in many HQs and units, full time and part time, the terms of service might be variable and flexible and an individual's pay rates might vary depending on the number of limitations (s)he needs to stay in ... i.e. no move until my kids finish elementary school, or no move out of Quebec or no move to Quebec, etc; and

4. The volunteer reserve which consists of people on part time service in part-time units. It (the RCNVR, CA(VR) and RCAFVR) is, as we used to say, a "students' militia" geared around a university student's academic year with units led and managed by a mix of former and serving full time (permanent force and reserve force) members.

The reserve force is the largest component; the active force component is the smallest ~ maybe ten ships, two brigades and four or five RCAF squadrons, all high readiness, all up to strength, all "ready to rumble."

Anyways ... thoughts from the Staff College bar, late on winter night, several decades ago ...

Neither the problem nor some of the solutions are all that new.

I think implementing something like that would result in wholesale departures, as lots of people can get geographic stability now while still meeting the requirements of the trade. Rather then penalize people for wanting to not move every few years, I think we should rationalize our relocations and incentivize moves.

That system also does nothing to retain quality people; staying fit, doing your weapons handling test etc are pretty basic, but really has nothing to do with being good at what you do.  There are a lot of reasons that people get out, but generally think it's for all kinds of reasons other than money, so there is no real silver bullet to fix the 'death by a thousand cuts' syndrome everyone is going through before deciding they've had enough.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think implementing something like that would result in wholesale departures, as lots of people can get geographic stability now while still meeting the requirements of the trade. Rather then penalize people for wanting to not move every few years, I think we should rationalize our relocations and incentivize moves.

That system also does nothing to retain quality people; staying fit, doing your weapons handling test etc are pretty basic, but really has nothing to do with being good at what you do.  There are a lot of reasons that people get out, but generally think it's for all kinds of reasons other than money, so there is no real silver bullet to fix the 'death by a thousand cuts' syndrome everyone is going through before deciding they've had enough.

Oh, I'm not suggesting that was is or ever could be the right answer ...

I'm trying to illustrate that the problem is not new, at all, and "solutions," including Staff College bar solutions, are endless.

My belief, and that's all it is, is that some of our problems are structural and resulted from Mr Hellyer's re-organization of the 1960s; others are a result of roles and tasks ~ I think that Pierre Trudeau's foreign policy shift (1969/70) had a hugely detrimental impact on the CF's image of itself and its role and I believe, still, almost 50 years after the fact, that morale was damaged. The senior leadership in the 1970s did not do all that much to inspire confidence, despite their wartime service.

         

My feeling ~ again, nothing more than that ~ is that we, Canada, have let too much time and too many events pass without taking a cold, hard, fundamental look at the changes that the Pearson and Trudeau (père) governments put in place. We are, in my opinion, overdue for that "look," and I hope one will come and that it will help to address the problems that have been with us for a long time.

I think we need to understand that the military is not always / usually / often (take you pick) the career of choice for the young people from the middle of the bell curve and perhaps we need to adjust both our expectations and those of society, too. Maybe a peacetime, standing, professional army cannot / need not, perhaps even ought not to reflect the society which it serves. I don't know the answers ~  :-\ :dunno: ~ but:

    1. I like what both PPCLI Guy and MCG are saying because they both have ideas;

    2. I believe that leadership matters more than money; and

    3. I affirm that the problem is not new.

 

[Pusser]

So are you suggesting, Pusser, the crap show that recently came to light with Brookfield is a figment of imagination or a better move experience than in the past? 

I can't speak for anyone else but myself but from my standpoint it was a better feeling in past moves for me than in recent times.

I'm suggesting no such thing.  The recent fiasco was a class A clusterf**k, but don't confuse the policy with its execution.  My point is that the policy and the actual benefits that members receive on posting has seen a net improvement.  The execution of the program, not so much.  The biggest problem with the old system was a lack of consistency.  Some ORs were very reasonable and pragmatic and others were not.  Some, frankly, broke the law.  Those who pine for the old ways are usually the ones who were well treated and got what they asked for (and sometimes more).  That doesn't mean that everyone had similar experiences.  I will concede, however, that the culture of denial, currently resident in DCBA (who really controls all of this, not Brookfield) is not helping things.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Somewhere on these boards, I have suggested something similar to elements of this Journey.  Instead of looking at it from a Reg F career flexibility perspective, I was looking more at the RegF/PRes boundary.

Currently, all Reg F positions have an Operational Baseline Type and I would either build on this or create a separate designation to differentiate between positions that can accept a limited liability occupant and positions require an unlimited liability occupant.  All Class B/A positions would become Reg F positions with a limited liability occupant acceptable designation (PRes incumbents would remain until end of current TOS, then be given the option to CT or vacate the position).

By default, all Reg F pers would be enrolled under unlimited liability TOS (with a skilled entrant enrollment plan offering an optional exception for re-enrollment and component transfer).  Once the initial TOS are complete, members would have the option to select either unlimited liability service or limited liability service (and they would have the flexibility to move between the two streams at any point thereafter).

Limited liability would be much like current PRes Cl B/A with 85% pay, no mandatory cost moves, and no obligation to deploy on international operations unless posted to an LDA or SDA unit (note: normally LDA and SDA positions would be designated unlimited liability required, but exceptions could exist if positions would otherwise be vacant and the member volunteers for the spot).  Unlimited liability would be like RegF with 100% pay, an obligation to move when posted, and an obligation to deploy anywhere when called to do so.  Both limited and unlimited liability members would be managed by the same CMs, attend the same career courses, and be selected for promotion through the same boards.  This means that the limited liability member can be posted, but only within the geographic location such that a move is not incurred.

Much like a PER opt-out, you cannot wait until you know the outcome is unfavourable to subscribe to the exemption.  To avoid an out-of-APS posting, the application for limited liability service need only be submitted before a posting message is cut.  To avoid an APS posting, the application for limited liability service need be submitted before December, with applications received after 01 Dec incurring a 4 month deferment to activation.  By contrast, if a member opts from limited liability to unlimited liability, a posting message could be cut the very next day regardless of timing as APS or out-of-APS.  For exceptional personal circumstances, compassionate status would continue to exist, and would not be governed by the same timelines as opting into limited liability.

Lots more meat to put on this skeleton though, and a lot of scenarios that I have not taken the time to describe (and likely even more that I have not thought of).

I've read this over a few times, and have a question.  I can see this working for the trades with larger numbers;  HR Admin, AVN Techs, etc.  What about smaller trades?  WFE Tech is pretty small IIRC, Geo Tech, my trade is PMLd around 200.

How would you keep the 'circulation' healthy enough with small numbers;  no every who wanted it could get limited liability.  Max 5 years limited, then have to go unlimited?  Or, would some trades just not have the option.  I'm sure the 1 Div boss would be quite interested in keeping planes crewed. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

Wouldn't really be feasible with naval units.  That's part of the problem already.  Many folks who are unfit sea, so the remainder are pier head jumped from ship to ship until they burn out and become broken themselves or release.

 

[dapaterson]

If there are excessive numbers unfit sea, maybe we need to release more, not less...

 

[jollyjacktar]

If there are excessive numbers unfit sea, maybe we need to release more, not less...

And replace them with what...?  They can't attract enough now without taking out more who are in a shore billet that would also need to be filled.